Meadville, PA

Meadville, PA’s statistical area has a population of 82,716, and its evidence is useful precisely because the records point to questions rather than a single market verdict. Zillow supplies both asking-rent and home-value indexes as of 2026-06-30, while the other sources observe income, labor, construction, resale conditions, migration, mortgage occupancy, and hazard exposure on their stated periods. The trailing-12-month Zillow rent change is unavailable. For that reason this report assigns no score and no rank; price movement cannot substitute for an unobserved rent trend. The decision frame is therefore an evidence comparison: what the level data show, what each source does not measure, and where apparently conflicting signals need direct confirmation.

On Zillow’s 2026-06-30 measures, the home-value index is $171,535, after a 6.52% year-over-year change, and the asking-rent index is $901. The packet reports a 6.3% gross yield alongside those levels. This is a price-and-rent snapshot rather than a return statement: Zillow’s scopes are asking-rent and home-value indexes, not executed leases, operating expenses, or an investor’s realized yield. The observable contrast is that an annual home-value change is present but the comparable trailing-12-month rent change is not. It would be unsound to infer whether price and rent have moved together, whether the asking-rent level reflects concessions, or whether the reported yield has remained stable. Zillow consequently provides useful level economics but no basis for a trend score.

Census ACS reports median household income of $60,476. Against Zillow’s $901 asking-rent index, the supplied rent-to-income measure is 17.88%, while the home-value-to-income measure is 2.84. HUD’s FY2026 two-bedroom Fair Market Rent is $973; Zillow’s asking-rent index equals 92.6% of that benchmark, a $72 difference calculated as $973 minus $901. These are boundaries, not a lease-by-lease affordability finding. Census ACS income is a household measure, HUD Fair Market Rent is a program benchmark for a two-bedroom unit, and Zillow’s index is an asking-rent series with no stated bedroom match in the packet. The comparison identifies a level gap worth examining but does not establish typical tenant costs, eligibility, actual rents, or housing burden.

BLS’s LAUS metro labor measure shows a 0.37% change over the 12 months through 2026-05. Census Building Permits Survey data show 62 total permitted units in 2026 YTD through M06, with zero in the five-or-more-unit category and a 0% five-or-more-unit share. The permit data concern authorizations, not completions or availability. Redfin’s 2026-05-01 resale measures are separate: months of supply are 2.7 versus 2.1 previously, median days on market are 34 versus 29, sale-to-list is 96.4%, and price reductions are 32.39% versus 28.39%. That is a 0.6-month increase in listed supply, a 5-day increase in market time, and a 4-percentage-point increase in price reductions. BLS, Census Building Permits, and Redfin therefore describe labor, future-authorized construction, and resale listings—not a common housing-stock or rental-vacancy measure. Their movements should not be collapsed into a single supply conclusion.

Movement and buyer composition add another boundary. IRS county-to-county tax-return migration, aggregated to the market, lists 1,403 moving in and 1,462 moving out, yielding net migration of -59. Its AGI-in figure is $49,258, compared with an AGI-out figure of $49,452, a -$194 gap. Those IRS fields do not state which movers seek rentals, purchase homes, or remain in the market after the move. HMDA is different evidence: its 2024 purchase-mortgage occupancy measure lists 568 total purchases, 38 investor purchases, and a 6.69% investor share. The HMDA share describes the reported purchase-mortgage occupancy classification, rather than all ownership or all rental demand. Read together, IRS and HMDA identify negative recorded migration and a measured investor-participation slice, but neither series establishes the depth, timing, or direction of rental demand.

FEMA adds a non-rent screen. The National Risk Index score is 76, the climate loss ratio is 0.000993, and the listed top hazard is inland flood, categorized as water. These are FEMA National Risk Index expected-annual-loss evidence and risk-screening fields; they do not identify exposure at any address or the cost of a particular policy, repair, or disruption. The available market cost-level evidence is limited to Zillow’s home-value and asking-rent indexes and HUD’s Fair Market Rent benchmark. No insurance premium, tax, maintenance, utility, or flood-repair cost appears in the packet. Accordingly, FEMA’s figures can keep hazard in the market-level review, but they cannot convert the $171,535 value index, $901 rent index, or 6.3% gross yield into a net-cost conclusion.

The practical due-diligence synthesis is to test the gaps that prevent the source set from answering a renter, landlord, or small investor’s specific question. For rents, establish whether current local listings and executed leases match Zillow’s $901 asking-rent index, what unit types are represented, and whether any concessions alter the comparison with HUD’s $973 two-bedroom benchmark. For supply, distinguish Census Building Permits authorizations from completions and separate those units from Redfin’s resale inventory. For demand, establish the timing and composition behind the IRS migration fields and the coverage limits behind HMDA’s investor classification. For risk and cost, obtain evidence relevant to the FEMA inland-flood screen and the omitted operating-cost categories. The record supports no directional call: Zillow’s observed value change, unavailable rent change, Census/HUD level measures, BLS labor result, Redfin changes, IRS flow, HMDA share, and FEMA screen answer different questions. A decision should retain those distinctions rather than treating the unranked market as scored or ranked.